Camping Impact Management on the A.T. - Appalachian Trail

122 Pages·2003·2.37 MB·English

APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONFERENCE
Camping Impact
Management on the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Camping Impact
Management on the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
August 2003
by: Jeffrey L. Marion
Unit Leader/Adjunct Professor
Virginia Tech/Department of Forestry
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
USDI, U.S. Geological Survey
Published by:
Appalachian Trail Conference
P.O. Box 807
799 Washington Street
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425-0807

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A heartfelt thank you to all the members of our camping management case study teams - we all
learned a great deal from each other. These teams have included federal and state land
management agency staff, Appalachian Trail Conference staff, scientists, and highly dedicated
volunteer trail club members. While too numerous to note here, study team members are listed
at the end of each case study included in Appendix 1. I’ve done my best to incorporate the
results of our collective learning within this report.
I am indebted to the Appalachian Trail Conference for “adopting” me into the Appalachian Trail
management community. Having section-hiked half of the Appalachian Trail I’ve always felt
a special attachment to it and as I complete that journey I will undoubtedly grow to cherish it
even more. Special credit is due to Bob Proudman for investing considerable time into this
project and my education regarding A.T. management, policies, and guidance. Bob organized
and participated in 16 of the 17 case study team reviews - not bad for a central office desk-
jockey! Thanks also to ATC regional office staff who have been instrumental in planning trips,
communicating with club members, and reviewing case study and final report drafts: New
England Regional staff J.T. Horn and former member Jody Bickel, Mid-Atlantic Regional staff
Karen Lutz and John Wright, Central and Southwest Virginia Regional staff Teresa Martinez
and former member Mike Dawson, and Deep South Regional staff Morgan Sommerville and
former member Ben Lawhon.
Finally, I extend thanks to former Virginia Tech Assistant Professor Troy Hall, for offering the
unique perspectives that only a social scientist can provide and to Appalachian Trail Park Office
Outdoor Recreation Specialist Rita Hennessy and U.S. Forest Service liaison Pete Irvine, for
their participating and project support.
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Legislative Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Agency Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appalachian Trail Conference Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Volunteer Trail Club Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
STUDY SITES AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Problem Analysis Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Identify and Evaluate the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Identify and Evaluate Strategies and Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CASE STUDY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Resource Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Campsite Proliferation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Campsite Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Vegetation, Soil, and Water Resource Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Campfire Site Proliferation and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Proliferation of Visitor-Created Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Human Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wildlife and Human Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Visitor Experience Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Crowding, Solitude, and Natural Quiet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Visitor Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Large Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Unified Camping Management Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Define Desired Future Condition Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Inventory and Monitor Campsite Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Adopt a Problem Assessment and Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Expand Emphasis on Camping Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Refine Guidance on Site Management and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Manage Overnight Visitation Within Specified Maximum Capacities . . . . 30
Discourage Trailside Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Page ii
Table of Contents
Manage Large Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Prohibit Wildlife From Obtaining Human Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Resolve Human Waste Management Problems in High Use Areas . . . . . . . 33
Reduce Proliferation of Visitor-Created Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDIX 1: Camping Management Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Cloud Pond Shelter, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Bigelow Col, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Full Goose Shelter, NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Stratton Pond, VT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Goddard Shelter, VT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Bear Rock Falls, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Sunfish Pond, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Tom’s Run Shelter, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Tumbling Run Shelter, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Annapolis Rocks, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Pine Knob Shelter, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Maupin Field Shelter, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Harper’s Creek Shelter, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Priest Mountain Shelter, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Slaughter Gap, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Blood Mountain Shelter, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Springer Mountain Shelter, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
APPENDIX 2: Camping Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Camping Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Decision Making and Management Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Management Strategies and Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Use-Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Amount of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Density of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Type of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
User Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Environmental Factors and Site Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Site Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Site Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Site Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Site Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Site Closure and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Page iii
Page iv
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the management of overnight use and associated impacts along the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail (A.T.). This effort was initiated in response to agency and Appalachian Trail
Conference (ATC) management concerns regarding the resource and social impacts of increasing
overnight visitation, particularly in high use areas. Report findings and recommendations are primarily
based on series of on-site investigations at 17 problem areas selected by A.T. clubs and ATC staff.
However, the report’s recommendations also draw on an examination of relevant A.T. legislative,
agency, and organization guidance and visitor impact management knowledge derived from research and
management experience.
The A.T. was constructed from 1923-37, inspired
primarily by the foresight of Benton MacKaye.
Much of the original construction was done by
volunteers, with coordination by the ATC, founded
in 1925. Active cooperation between numerous
trail clubs and the federal agencies was formalized
in 1938 by a National Park Service (NPS)/U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) agreement. I t was not until
1968 that the federal government formally
recognized the A.T. as a National Scenic Trail,
assigning the NPS as the lead management agency.
A 1978 amendment increased authorization for
land acquisition and corridor protection and
directed preparation of a comprehensive plan.
The A.T. remains largely a volunteer-managed trail
through the annual contributions of more than 4000
volunteers. The trail runs from Springer Mountain
in Georgia to Mt. Katahdin in Maine, traversing
2,170 miles, 14 states, 8 National Forests, 6 NPS
units, and over 60 state parks, forests and wildlife
areas (Figure 1). An interagency land acquisition
program authorized and funded by the U.S.
Congress is nearing completion, with 99% of the
A.T. corridor now in public ownership. A.T.
management is coordinated by the NPS
Appalachian Trail Park Office in cooperation with
the ATC, 31 affiliated clubs and other federal and
state agencies.
Park, forest, and wilderness managers must
maintain a balance between resource protection and
recreation provision mandates. Though a central
purpose for the creation and management of
Figure 1. Route followed by the Appalachian
protected areas, visitation has the potential to National Scenic Trail.
Page 1
Introduction
degrade natural resources and the experiences of other visitors. This is particularly true along trails, at
overnight campsites and shelters, and at day-use recreation sites like scenic overlooks and waterfalls,
where visitor use and associated resource and social impacts are concentrated.
According to the ATC, three to four million people hike some part of the A.T. each year. More than 300
“thru-hikers” walk its entire length each year. The potential consequences of this high visitation include
trampling and subsequent loss of ground vegetation, shrubs, and tree seedlings; felling of saplings;
erosion of surface litter and humus; exposure, erosion, and compaction of mineral soil; and exposure of
tree roots and damage to tree trunks (Table 1) (Cole 1987, Cole and Marion 1988, Hammitt and Cole
1987, Leung and Marion 2000). Visitors also notice and are affected by these resource impacts (Lucas
1979, Shelby and Shindler 1992). A survey of visitors to three eastern wilderness areas found that
littering and human damage to campsite trees were among the most highly rated indicators affecting the
quality of recreational experiences (Roggenbuck et al. 1993). These and other resource impact indicators,
such as the amount of vegetation loss and bare ground around a campsite, were rated above many social
indicators, including the number of people seen while hiking and encounters with other groups at campsites.
Table 1. Resource impacts caused by hiking, boating, and camping activities.
Vegetation Changes Soil Changes Additional Concerns
! Loss of Vegetation Cover ! Loss of Organic Matter ! Littering
! Alteration of Composition ! Erosion ! Threats to Water Quality
! Loss of Species ! Compaction ! Threats to Human Health
! Damage to Trees ! Reduction in Soil Moisture ! Threats to Cultural Resources
! Exposure of Tree Roots ! Impacts to Soil Fauna ! Threats to Wildlife
Land managers recognize the need for effective visitor management and resource protection programs to
balance visitation with its associated impacts. The recurring question, "Are we loving our parks to death?"
challenges managers to develop and implement management strategies and actions that permit visitor use
without compromising ecological and aesthetic integrity. Furthermore, managers must frequently engage
in this balancing act under the close scrutiny of the public, competing interest groups, and the courts.
This report contains four chapters and two Appendices. The first chapter reviews federal, ATC, and club
guidance for managing overnight visitation along the A.T. This review documents existing guidance but
is also intended to stimulate and facilitate dialogue aimed at developing more comprehensive and specific
future guidance, including prescriptive management objectives. Greater specificity in objectives that define
desired future conditions for different trail segments (zones) can assist trail managers in reaching
agreement on consistent overnight use policies and actions across institutional and geographic boundaries.
The second chapter reviews the 17 study sites visited by the case study teams and the methods used to
evaluate camping management problems and identify recommended management actions. Chapter three
summarizes the core results from the site investigations within two general themes: resource protection
issues (e.g., campsite proliferation, camping impacts, human waste management) and visitor experience
issues (e.g., crowding, conflicts, large groups).
Page 2
Introduction
Chapter four presents twelve recommendations that would promote unified camping management guidance
for the A.T. and addresses the major issues and problems identified by the case studies. The need for A.T.
zoning and prescriptive desired future condition statements to guide decision making is highlighted. The
Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a planning tool developed by the USFS (Clark and Stankey
1979, USFS 1980), provides a useful model for this process. ROS characterizes a range of activity, setting,
and experience attributes along a zoning continuum from primitive to urban. This system provides a
framework for distinguishing and managing separate zones to achieve different resource protection and
recreation experience objectives and opportunities. Recommendations also call for an expanded emphasis
on camping management, refined guidance on site and facility management, and management of trailside
camping, large groups, human waste, food storage, visitor-created trails, and shelter/camping capacities.
Appendix 1 contains the camping management case studies for the 17 sites visited. Each case study
describes the shelter or camping area, resource and social impact problems, previous management actions,
and recommendations. Case study team members and their affiliations are also listed. Appendix 2 contains
a comprehensive review of camping management practices applicable to the A.T. This section begins with
a review of the decision making process and constraints, followed by a review of a diverse array of
management strategies and tactics. These include use-related factors (user behavior and amount, density
and type of use) and environmental/site management factors (site selection, design, construction, facilities,
maintenance and closure).
Page 3